My 12-year-old son is an avid gamer. He lives in that world. And he’s dead set against AI in his games. My teenage daughter? She generally doesn’t turn to AI at all.
I’m not holding them up as proof of what a generation thinks. But the contradiction stuck with me: a kid completely immersed in technology who still doesn’t want a machine replacing the people who make what he loves.
Turns out, he’s not alone. And for those of us in radio, that tension is worth paying close attention to.
The Pushback Is Going Public
Gamers have been loud about it. Players have pressured studios to rethink their use of AI, and in at least one case a studio withdrew a game after fans raised concerns about AI-generated imagery.
It’s not just gaming. Aerie, American Eagle’s lingerie and loungewear brand, pledged not to use AI-generated people or bodies in its marketing.
The music industry is moving, too. The recording industry has introduced a labeling program to distinguish “AI-Generated” recordings from “AI-Assisted” ones. The idea is to give listeners more information instead of treating every use of AI as the same thing.
That last one should get every programmer’s attention. If listeners are being asked to sort songs by how much AI went into them, it’s only a matter of time before they ask the same question about the voices between the songs.
It’s About Who’s in Control
It would be easy to boil all of this down to “people hate AI.” I don’t think that’s what’s happening.
Look closer, and the objection is more specific. People push back when AI seems to replace human artists, imitate real people, or make a product feel cheap or deceptive. They’re far more comfortable when it’s helping.
The data backs that up. A Bentley-Gallup survey released in August found 75% of U.S. adults are fine with businesses using AI to brainstorm or draft ads, as long as it’s disclosed. But 62% say it’s unacceptable for businesses to use AI to create people or voices in ads — even with disclosure. Among adults 18 to 29, that number jumps to 73%.
That’s an advertising number, but radio should read it closely. Voices and personalities are our product. If nearly two-thirds of Americans don’t want a synthetic voice selling them a car, how do they feel about one hosting their morning drive?
People may accept AI’s assistance. They just don’t want it in the driver’s seat.
The Tipping Point
Here’s the tipping point for me. I used AI to research and edit this column. But the ideas, the thinking, and the point of view are mine. When AI introduces a concept that’s foreign to that, I push back. Unless the argument is sound. Then I stop and think about it.
So in a way, AI is challenging me. Which leaves me with the real question: Am I training the machine, or is the machine training me?
I don’t have a clean answer. Most of us don’t.
What Does “Human” Actually Mean?
iHeartMedia has made the most public promise in our industry. Its “Guaranteed Human” initiative rules out AI-generated personalities and synthetic vocalists, and its stations work the pledge into their hourly legal IDs. It’s a concrete stand, and it lines up with what the research says listeners want.
But it raises the next question. If an AI voice can sound human, is the voice alone enough?
I spent 30 years building morning shows and coaching talent. The ones who won rarely won because of how they sounded. They won because listeners trusted them. They knew the market. They showed up in the community. And when a bit went sideways, they owned it.
That’s radio’s real value: judgment, perspective, a relationship built over years, and responsibility for what gets said. An AI voice can read a liner. It can’t be accountable for it.
Some stations are already experimenting with AI-voiced shifts to fill holes in the schedule. I understand the math. But every time we swap a person for a simulation, we chip away at the one thing streaming services and algorithms can’t replicate.
AI can help with plenty of the process — show prep, research, production, scheduling. Even iHeart says it uses AI tools to run parts of its business. Still, every station has to decide what it trusts and what it’s willing to put its name behind.
The Public
Public backlash can push companies to change. Gamers proved that. But listeners won’t always be able to tell when AI is involved, and that puts the responsibility on us — the programmers, the managers, and the talent.
So where should the line be drawn — and who gets to draw it?
The future may not come down to whether AI can sound human. It may come down to whether a real person is still making the choices, and is willing to stand behind them.
Radio has been keeping that promise for a hundred years. Now it just has to say it out loud — and mean it.
Barrett Media produces daily content on the music, news, and sports media industries. Sign up for our newsletters to stay updated and get the latest information right in your inbox.
